If Crowder shoved the guy to the ground - then he should have gotten punched, dont disagree.

now all that's left is for you to condemn both Crowder and Faux News for being frauds and liars and then of course apologize to the board for posting yet another lie or at the very least for being too lazy to find out the truth before posting

ya and you get the benefits of unions without paying. Also, right to work states are worse off everytime this legislation or similar legislation passes.

What valid arguement can you make for it?

Worse off? Hardly!!

Try employees in right-to-work (RTW) states having up to $4300 more in purchasing power and the top 5 states (in terms of low unemployment) being RTW states, with the state highest in unemployment being forced union states.

History shows that Michigan's citizens will soon be saying that the state's new "Right to Work" law is "a good thing for Michigan," National Right to Work Pres. Mark Mix explains.....

"Indiana, I believe, has led the nation in new private sector job growth since they passed the Right to Work law in February. The economic development department out in Indiana has indicated there have been 90 new deals of companies that have come and said 'we're interested - now that you're in a Right to Work state - to either expand or relocate in your state.' So, it has had a dramatic impact on the economic activity in the state of Indiana."

Mix notes that workers in Right to Work states not only tend to have as much as $4,300 more purchasing power, but also are more likely to have health insurance:

"And if you look at the other 22 Right to Work states, you find when it relates to private sector job growth, when it relates to increase in private sector per-capita purchasing power, or adjusted for cost of living, you find those states are doing much better.

"So, there's lots of data out there that talks about this, including a study from the George Mason Department of Economics. They did a study when, adjusting wages for cost of living, they found workers in Right to Work states have about $2,300 more to spend than workers in forced-unionism states.

"Dr. Barry Poulsen, from the University of Colorado, did a study using a similar study about cost of living. He found that there was a $4,300 advantage in Right to Work states for purchasing power for workers who were in Right to Work states versus states that allowed forced unionism."

"In fact, the percentage of workers covered by healthcare increase dramatically in Right to Work states and decrease in states that don't have Right to Work."

"So the metrics are out there. But most importantly, this is about individual freedom in the workplace."

Studies show that Right to Work states also have lower unemployment due to their more business-friendly environment, Mix says:

"Looking at the Bureau of Census data, and looking at the Bureau of Economic Analysis data, and then looking at some regional think-tanks and economic forecasting statistical aggregators, we find this data.

"It's pretty straight forward. In The Washington Times today (Tuesday), actually, there's a chart where it talks about the lowest states with unemployment. The top five states with the lowest unemployment are Right to Work states. The bottom five are forced-unionism states.

"In the standpoint of places to do business, CNBC ranks the states on the business climate. The top five are Right to Work states, the bottom are non-Right to Work states.

So the politicians in the state is concerned about civil rights here.I dont trust government and i know you dont either.

There is some other motives behind this, wouldnt you agree?

The motives are obvious: Companies want to save money and employees want to be able to work, without their due going to politicians/causes they don't like.

If unions get out of hand, they want the option of getting non-union workers to continue business.

Obama and the Dems call it "right to work for less". In a way, they're right. But, if a company is struggling and an employees is willing to take a pay cut or fewer hours, to avoid getting whacked altogether, that should be that employee's call, not that of a union.

The motives are obvious: Companies want to save money and employees want to be able to work, without their due going to politicians/causes they don't like.

If unions get out of hand, they want the option of getting non-union workers to continue business.

Obama and the Dems call it "right to work for less". In a way, they're right. But, if a company is struggling and an employees is willing to take a pay cut or fewer hours, to avoid getting whacked altogether, that should be that employee's call, not that of a union.

No. Very few jobs in america have labor unions. Most are free-enterprise and set their own standards for wages/benefits. Also only a minor amount of states are "Right to work" states. I think 12 out of 50. And their results are not doing as good as mcway has posted. See link:

No. Very few jobs in america have labor unions. Most are free-enterprise and set their own standards for wages/benefits. Also only a minor amount of states are "Right to work" states. I think 12 out of 50. And their results are not doing as good as mcway has posted. See link:

Michigan just became the 24th state to become "right-to-work". That's just under HALF, hardly a minor amount of states.

You used a link from union site; I used one, citing a RTW official. So, that's a wash. It's all about, in the end, the unemployment numbers, wages, benefits, and costs of living.

Yes. I agree. And if im allowed to increase company profits....one way to do that is to lower payroll wages. If im the boss and answer to no one whos to stop me? Ill say "Hey Mcway, My shareholders want some dividends this quarter so your going to take a paycut. You can take it or leave it and ill hire someone from this pile of applications i have on my desk"

Yes. I agree. And if im allowed to increase company profits....one way to do that is to lower payroll wages. If im the boss and answer to no one whos to stop me? Ill say "Hey Mcway, My shareholders want some dividends this quarter so your going to take a paycut. You can take it or leave it and ill hire someone from this pile of applications i have on my desk"

Yet, if that keeps up, then I go to a competitor who will pay me more. Word-of-mouth advertising still works well. When it gets out that a certain competitor of your former boss is paying more for doing the same job, it's exodus time.

Besides, happy employees tend to be productive ones. I've never had my wages cut, when a company was doing well. In fact, I got quite a nice Christmas bonus, when one place where I worked did excellent that particular quarter.

Yet, if that keeps up, then I go to a competitor who will pay me more. Word-of-mouth advertising still works well. When it gets out that a certain competitor of your former boss is paying more for doing the same job, it's exodus time.

Besides, happy employees tend to be productive ones. I've never had my wages cut, when a company was doing well. In fact, I got quite a nice Christmas bonus, when one place where I worked did excellent that particular quarter.

Right now every company has a hundred applications on the desk. So you are expendable. Until it becomes a "Workers market" where theirs a shortage of workers...then wages will stay low.

Well, then you are depending on the niceness and compassion of upper management. Some like to have a back-up knowing they have a job to go to.

Its the right of every employer to decide what jobs he offers, what wages he offers, and who he hires. Its the right of every individual to decide how they spend their money. Its the right of every employee to decide what job they are willing to work, what wage they are willing to accept, and who they are willing to work for. Its the right off all individuals to organize and campaign/negotiate for changes in the world they are fit. Whethe employers or employees both are humans with the right to freedom.